233 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Archaeology Archippus (170-71): "In accordance with what has been said, it is very improbable that the composer in the chief matters rested upon a real tradition of the people, but we must accept as a fact that it is a free creation tffioughout." On the same subject, in reply to some of his critics (Zeitschrift far W. Theol, 1870, 218-19), he says: ''l sum up once more the general points: (1) Ofthe names mentioned in Gen 14, several are unhistorical (the name of Sodom and Gomorrah, the three Amorites, Melchizedek; in my view, also, Abram and Lot, and probably the four overwhelmed cities). (2) The expedi¬ tion of the kings cannot have taken place as narrated .... even through the very cleamess of the narra¬ tive are we made to know that we have here to do with a romantic expedition, the course of which is determined by aim at sharper effect, and which has for itself no historical probabiUty. (3) The smaU number of the host, in whose complete victory over the army ot the four kings the story at last comes to a cUmax, is con¬ trary to sense, while yet it designates about the utmost number which, as his own flghting men, a private citizen could put in the fleld. "¦Whoever uow tliroughout all of this will hold to an historical kernel may do so; he must then admit that at some perfectly uncertain time in great antiquity a king of Elam ruled over the Jordan land and made a warUke expedition thither. But that would be the ut¬ most concession I could make. Everything more pre¬ cise, as numbers, names, etc, and also exactly that which produces the appearance of careful tradition and trust¬ worthiness is partly false, partly quite unreUable .... more especiaUy, beyond the conquest itself nothing whatever could be known. But to me it stiU seems much more probable, in view of the consistent, and for the aim of the narrator, exceedingly weU ordered, but stUl, in reaUty, impossible course of the narrative, out from which there cannot be separated any single things as bare exaggeration of the tradition, that we have here a conscious flction in which only a few historical names have been used." Now, recalUng to mind the facts of archaeology in this case (cf above) it becomes evident that they are very far from "harmoffizing 26. The enthely" with the opinion advanced Facts of by Noldeke and reiterated by Driver, Archaeology and the method of advocating such "harmonizing" appears very clearly. Moreover, what is true of this particffiar theory of Noldeke and Driver is equally true of other radical critical theories at present held. Of the current reconstructive theories of criticism—the patriarchs not individuals but personffications; the rude, nomadic, semi-barbarous condition of Pal in the patriarchal age; the desert; Egypt; the comparative unimportance of Moses as a law¬ giver; the gradual invasion of Pal; the naturalistic origm of Israel's reUgion from astral myths; and the late authorsffip of the Pent—not one is being sustained. In fact, however much archaeological evidence there may be that is negative in character or that is not definitely against the reconstructive theories of criticism, no one can point to a single definite particular of archaeological evidence where¬ by any one of these theories is positively sustained and corroborated. 5. The present state of the discussion.—The present stage of progress of the testing of critical theories by archaeological e'vidence may briefly be stated. The Bible at its face value is being cor¬ roborated wherever archaeology immediately and definitely touches it. To illustrate this statement fully would be to cite every definite piece of archae¬ ological evidence in the BibUcal field of scientific research during the last one hundred years. But -views of Scripture raust finally square with the results of archaeology, i.e. -with contempora¬ neous history, and, just as archaeological research makes that contemporaneous history to appear, critical theories at variance therewith are of neces¬ sity giving way; so that, as far as the process has been carried to the present time, archaeology is bringing criticism into harmony with the face value of Scripture, and is not definitely and unequivocally encouragmg attempts at literary reconstruction of any portion of the Bible, although sometimes asked to render such service. LiTERATUEE.—The bibUography of the discussion has appeared in the references fully given throughout this article. The bibUography on the subject of tlUs art., "Archaeology and Criticism," is, as Indicated above, exceedingly meager, since the importance of the subject has but recently come to the front and been generally recognized. The foUowing may be cited: Driver, in Authority and Archaeology (Hogarth), ch 1; Eerdmans, Hibbert Journal, July, 1909; also Alttestamentliche Studien; Orr, The Problem of the OT, ch xi; Bennett, Contemporary Review, 1906, 518. T\/r p TCyt tt ARCHAEOLOGY OF ASIA MINOR. See Asia Minor, Archaeology of. ARCHANGEL, ark-an'jel. See Angel. ARCHELAUS, ar-k6-la'us ('Apx^Xaos, ArchMaos, Mt 2 22): Son of Herod the Great by his wife Malthace. He succeeded on his father's death to the government of Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea, but was deposed by the Romans for misgovemment in 6 AD. See Herod. ARCHERY, ar'oher-i: (1) The art of usmg the arcus, or bow and arrow for hunting and in battle is of great antiquity. It is mentioned in Gen 21 20, as well as in the Iliad and the Odyssey, and depicted on Egyp monuments and in Assjrr sculptures. The PffiUs exceUed in the art, wffich led David to order that special training in it be given to the Hebrews (2 S 1 18). It was an important art tffioughout the world m BibUcal tiraes (Sfee Gen 27 3; Isa 22 6; 49 2; Ps 127 4). The Benjamites among the Hebs were noted as archers (Jgs 20), and archers constituted much of the fighting strength, and played no mean part in the -victories, of the world-famed Gr and Rom armies. (2) The bow was common to civil (Gen 21 20) and miUtary life (Zee 9 10), and -vies with the spear in importance and antiquity. It was usuaUy raade of tough, elastic, seasoned wood, and often mounted with bronze (see Ps 18 34 RV; cf Job 20 24). But horn, too, was used for bows by the ancients, some with double curves being evidently modeled after the horns of oxen. The bow-string was coramonly ox-gut and the arrows were of reed, or light wood tipped with ffint, bronze, or hon. (3) The battle bows, such as are mentioned in Zee 9 10; 10 4, must have been of great size, sinoe they reqffired to be strung by pressing the foot on the lower end, while the upper end was bent down to receive the string into a notch; hence the expression "to tread [=string] the bow,' and "bow- treaders," for archers (Jer 50 14.29 Heb). The arrows, "the sons of his quiver" (Lam 3 13m, RV "shafts"), were ordinarily, of course, carried in the quiver, which was either placed on the back or slung on the left side, secured by a belt over the right shoulder (HDB). The day of gunpowder and firearms, of course, was not yet. Geo. B. Eager ARCHEVITE, ar'ke-vit (KHhibh, '''i^')'^, 'ar- kdwey; KTe, S!)i3']5?, 'ark'wdye'): One of the tribes which Osnappar transplanted to swell the mixed multitudes in the cities of Samaria (Ezr 4 9). The Archevites were the inhabitants of Erech, one of the four cities originally founded by Nimrod in Babylonia. (For its raodern site cf Loftus, Travels in Chaldea and Susiana, 162 ff). Marquardt (Fund, 64 ff) emends the text to read S'^CnilS I'Vn, di kuthdye', "who are Cuthaeans" (2 K 17 24). ARCHI, ar'ki. See Archites. ARCHIPPUS, ar-kip'us ('ApxCiriros, Archlppos): Addressed by Paul in his letter to Philem, as "our fellow-soldier"; probably a meraber of Pffilem's